linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] thp, mm: locking tail page is a bug

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20130717140953.7560e88e607f8f5df1b1fdd8@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:09:53 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] thp, mm: locking tail page is a bug

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:47:51 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> Locking head page means locking entire compound page.
> If we try to lock tail page, something went wrong.
> 
> ..
>
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -639,6 +639,7 @@ void __lock_page(struct page *page)
>  {
>  	DEFINE_WAIT_BIT(wait, &page->flags, PG_locked);
>  
> +	VM_BUG_ON(PageTail(page));
>  	__wait_on_bit_lock(page_waitqueue(page), &wait, sleep_on_page,
>  							TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
>  }
> @@ -648,6 +649,7 @@ int __lock_page_killable(struct page *page)
>  {
>  	DEFINE_WAIT_BIT(wait, &page->flags, PG_locked);
>  
> +	VM_BUG_ON(PageTail(page));
>  	return __wait_on_bit_lock(page_waitqueue(page), &wait,
>  					sleep_on_page_killable, TASK_KILLABLE);
>  }

lock_page() is a pretty commonly called function, and I assume quite a
lot of people run with CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=y.

Is the overhead added by this patch really worthwhile?

I'm thinking I might leave it in -mm indefinitely but not send it
upstream.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/